GLEAM version 3: Global Land Evaporation Datasets and Model

Abstract:

Terrestrial evaporation links energy, water and carbon cycles over land and is therefore a key variable of the climate system. However, the global-scale magnitude and variability of the flux, and the sensitivity of the underlying physical process to changes in environmental factors, are still poorly understood due to limitations in in situ measurements. As a result, several methods have risen to estimate global patterns of land evaporation from satellite observations. However, these algorithms generally differ in their approach to model evaporation, resulting in large differences in their estimates. One of these methods is GLEAM, the Global Land Evaporation: the Amsterdam Methodology. GLEAM estimates terrestrial evaporation based on daily satellite observations of meteorological variables, vegetation characteristics and soil moisture. Since the publication of the first version of the algorithm (2011), the model has been widely applied to analyse trends in the water cycle and land-atmospheric feedbacks during extreme hydrometeorological events. A third version of the GLEAM global datasets is foreseen by the end of 2015. Given the relevance of having a continuous and reliable record of global-scale evaporation estimates for climate and hydrological research, the establishment of an online data portal to host these data to the public is also foreseen. In this new release of the GLEAM datasets, different components of the model have been updated, with the most significant change being the revision of the data assimilation algorithm. In this presentation, we will highlight the most important changes of the methodology and present three new GLEAM datasets and their validation against in situ observations and an alternative dataset of terrestrial evaporation (ERA-Land). Results of the validation exercise indicate that the magnitude and the spatiotemporal variability of the modelled evaporation agree reasonably well with the estimates of ERA-Land and the in situ observations. It is also shown that the performance of the revised model is higher compared to the original one.